Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there was wrongdoing, the investigators will find it. If Trump Org is innocent, Donald/org will be vindicated. It is that simple.
And once again, if you have faith that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing, you should not only be okay with the investigation but encourage it and be excited about it. It will prove Trump's innocence.
If there was wrongdoing, the investigators will find it. If Trump Org is innocent, Donald/org will be vindicated. It is that simple.
And once again, if you have faith that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing, you should not only be okay with the investigation but encourage it and be excited about it. It will prove Trump's innocence.
That judge is a dope and it seems he never even read the clause. Either way this is just another attempt to cause a distraction that will go nowhere at all.
Enlighten us, O Constitutional Scholar, on the pleadings that have been filed and the judge's order.
We are SO blessed to have such a large cadre of posters with impeccable legal credentials who take time from their extremely profitable practices to help the rest of us understand these conplicated, arcane, subjects.
This is the Federal judge's second ruling on this case. It is expected that DOJ will ask for an emergency stay and appeal to higher court.
The judge issued a 52 page decision and went a lot farther than the judge in the DC case with regard to what an emolument is.
DOJ had argued that monies had to be exchanged quid pro quo or essentially a tit-for-tat bribe.
The judge disagreed saying the framers of the Constitution wanted presidents not to accept ANY monies from any government (foreign or domestic) other than his/her presidential salary. He said the writers of the Constitution wanted to keep the president from even appearing to have been swayed or influenced by any monies at all (other than his/her salary).
1--He/his company didn't "BUY" the hotel---he does not OWN the hotel
They bid for a contract to refurbish and run the government bldg as a hotel---
There was a clause in the contract that IF anyone went to work for the Federal Govt---
They had to give up the contract
Trump said that since he has "distanced" himself from running (but NOT owning) his corporation that clause doesn't apply to him...
2--this judge that the Trump supporters disparaged apparently did make some pro-Trump decisions when he heard these pleadings---he cut out any part of the suit that is tied to hotels outside Washington--
So this case won't include any issues with other real estate his company might own that could be considered to benefit POTUS when foreign governments or business or wealthy individuals hold events there or buy condos, etc...
So that decision was to Trump's benefit since there were charges in there about that very fact
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
